I still contend (as I mentioned way back) that Canon knows more about the 5D3 than probably any other camera. It's supposed to be their "big deal" camera designed for everyone and destined to follow the 5D2 in rocking the world of every pro and enthusiast that has a high credit limit. They took their time developing and testing all the prototypes with pro beta testers in every situation. I think they know and have known every strength and weakness of this camera since it was in early beta. The fact that we are experiencing what they likely knew all along is somewhat meaningless to them and they probably plan to respond when they have something they think is considered progress on the problem and what we would like to hear. In fact, if a firmware update can fix or improve the problem, the future April firmware date may be a deadline to keep the engineers engaged and motivated to fix the problem (among others).

Of course, this is all just an assumption on my part but I really have a hard time believing that Canon is so clueless about their own cameras that they need a user forum to explain the limits and flaws of something they designed, built and extensively tested (for years) themselves.

i agree rustbuster...your reasoning makes sense to me. as you say, it's nearly impossible to believe they didn't do some basic testing with the flash in lower light situations...they must have, so they do know. it's a bit like the nikon d800 where they have the "green screen"....how the hell did nikon just let that go to market, but they did...they knew and they did anyway. hard to comprehend the way these companies operate sometimes.

that would certainly explain the silent stall strategy, and the assumption that togs would be satisfied with a AF lock time measured in seconds, perhaps in exchange for extraordinary repeatability and accuracy. in fact, to the extent this is true, the implication is that such AF performance can be adjusted via firmware. i.e. perhaps offer the user a choice of low light AF performance that woudl give up accuracy for speed. Such a move might come relatively silently in an firmware release "giving the user more choices for exceptional AF peformance" for example. Indeed, the problematic use cases I've read about appear to target light levels well above the minimum sensitivity of the AF system itself.

The only fly in that soup theory is the experience of obtaining an improvement with a different body. THAT suggests a hardware, parts, or build quality control in the manufacturing process that is silently corrected.

Also , the fact that teh 6D performs much better aparently in the same light levels well within the 5D3 spec means that they know. oh yes by now I agree that they know becasue the 6D does not have this disease. of course, it does not have the same AF system and has never been offered as having the same accuracy. just my opinion ,which is worth what you paid for it of course, is that it is Canon's oversight and "ah hah" moment to discover a specif use case in which the lesser camera wipes the floor of the greater camera, and where a portion of the user community sees this and does not like it.

As unusual as it might seem, it is also possible for a specific use case to be left un accounted for in the 5D3 test suite, and the qualification prior to release to production might have been hasty, we don't really know. Its new territory for Canon to have built the worlds most advanced AF system and maybe this is really just a booboo.

I do acknowlege however that it would be highly unusual for Canon to acknowledge the issue directly, perfering instead to decide from their armchairs that all is well and fix this in the 5D4

yea that was quite a coincidence -- after seeing a rather direct and precisely worded discription of how disapointing the Canon engagement was, all of a sudden a new rep comes in with the good news. very encouraging indeed!

Better than no reaction, though I'd like to note that the Canon rep was writing about developing and "enhancing", maybe that's just corporate sugar-coated writing style, but chose not to simply state that the 5d3 will be brought to the same af assist speed than the older models with the next fw update :-o

well.... just parsing through what we know and what we do not know - the encouraging part is that Canon has, in a sponsored forum, acknowledged the issue and committed to address it with a firmware fix. timing wasn't discussed nor committed to, but this is significant progress. For Canon to publically state their recognition of this issue, and their approach to make it better, is extraordinary.

So to say if one is encouraged or optimistic I would say yes there is sufficient evidence to be so. April is just around the corner, so the next step will be validation and field reaction. then we will know whether or not to remain optimistic or not!

Better than no reaction, though I'd like to note that the Canon rep was writing about developing and "enhancing", maybe that's just corporate sugar-coated writing style, but chose not to simply state that the 5d3 will be brought to the same af assist speed than the older models with the next fw update :-o

I think its appropriate to question, indeed. Corporate speak is very carefully worded and sometimes we must parse and interpret ... here's my read:

"enhancing" means "yup we see the problem, oops our bad, we know how to fix it, but we're not calling it a fix because that would imply that we agreed there was a problem in the first place -- so we're casting this as an enhancment so that people see that we are responsive to the issue, while we enhance the loyalty of that portion of the installed base who doesn't know or care about it."

As for any commitment to bring the 5d3 af assist speed up to that of older models; I wouldn't expect them to publish any such goal, even if they do it. Since this is a rumor site I hope its cool if I postulate:

1.We know that the 5D3 AF system itself is uber capable compared to the others against which it is being compared for AF speed. AF accuracy, especially is a key benefit of the 5D3 and I suggest this is accomplished by a more sophisticated closed loop feedback mechanism that requires perhaps additional cycles to converge on "success" with some retry-credence ruleset. This means many variables, including the lens, hardware performance, algorithm design and the code implimentation itself, contribute to the overall performance.

2. there may some algorithmic tuning or even coding errors that can be addressed to improve AF speed, and this appears to be the case. That aside, there is still an implied trade-off between accuracy and speed (imho) for such a capable AF system. IF Canon can provide both speed and accuracy, all the better of course, but if there remains a trade-off perhaps they will provide a choice, i.e. a custom setting that helps define the AF behavior in low light.

well.... just parsing through what we know and what we do not know - the encouraging part is that Canon has, in a sponsored forum, acknowledged the issue and committed to address it with a firmware fix. timing wasn't discussed nor committed to, but this is significant progress. For Canon to publically state their recognition of this issue, and their approach to make it better, is extraordinary.

So to say if one is encouraged or optimistic I would say yes there is sufficient evidence to be so. April is just around the corner, so the next step will be validation and field reaction. then we will know whether or not to remain optimistic or not!

I agree, it also strikes me as quite a shift in corporate attitude towards customer engagement. In this day and age I don't think 'extraordinary' is too strong a word.

I agree, it also strikes me as quite a shift in corporate attitude towards customer engagement. In this day and age I don't think 'extraordinary' is too strong a word.

in fact, a "shift in attitude" occured on that very site in that very thread. Originally, the Canon engagement was basically to help the minions use their cameras correctly. Perhaps a nice corporate strategy, to be sure. but then it became clear it the problem was not about minions using their cameras incorrectly, and all of a sudden the communication stopped. Canon went dark side of the moon, people started voicing their interpretations as to why, and Canon was left staring as a dear in headlights, as it were (my interpretation). a couple of reps came in at different times to repeat the std talking points but nothing really happened. Even a moderator came in and repeated the same thing -- all these comments spaced far enough apart to create great anxiety.

then another moderator came in to announce that a fix (ok, 'enhancement') was in the works. Suddenly, the conversation shifted from "help the minions use their cameras' to 'fix the minions cameras'

Hi all, we have an important update on this topic. Thanks again for your feedback on our Forum.

Canon has confirmed that, depending upon the shooting conditions, it may take slightly longer for the EOS 5D Mark III and EOS-1D X digital SLR cameras to acquire focus when using the Speedlite's AF Assist Beam, compared with that of the EOS 5D Mark II and EOS-1D Mark IV digital SLR cameras using the Speedlite's AF Assist Beam. We are developing a firmware update to enhance the focusing feature for the EOS 5D Mark III and the EOS-1D X. The schedule for release of this firmware update will be announced shortly.